|
|
 |
|
| | |
| | The End of Journalism | | | | Friday, October 31, 2008 (8:33 AM) | | Sometime in 2008, journalism as we knew it died, and advocacy media took its place.
By Victor Davis Hanson
There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.
Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored.
CAMPAIGN FINANCING
For years an axiom of the liberal establishment was the need for public campaign financing — and the corrosive role of private money in poisoning the election process. The most prominent Republican who crossed party lines to ensure the passage of national public campaign financing was John McCain — a maverick stance that cost him dearly among conservatives who resented bitterly federal interference in political expression.
In contrast, Barack Obama, remember, promised that he would accept both public funding and the limitations that went along with it, and would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Then in June 2008, Obama abruptly reneged, bowing out entirely from government financing, the first presidential nominee in the general election to do that since the system was created in 1976.
Obama has now raised over $600 million, by far the largest campaign chest in American political history. In many states he enjoys a four-to-one advantage in campaign funding — most telling in his scheduled eleventh-hour, 30-minute specials that will not be answered by the publicly financed and poorer McCain campaign.
The story that the media chose to ignore was not merely the Obama about-face on public financing, or even the enormous amounts of money that he has raised — some of it under dubious circumstances involving foreign donors, prepaid credit cards, and false names. Instead, they were absolutely quiet about a historic end to liberal support for public financing.
For all practical purposes, public financing of the presidential general election is now dead. No Republican will ever agree to it again. No Democrat can ever again dare to defend a system destroyed by Obama. All future worries about the dangers of big money and big politics will fall on deaf ears.
Surely, there will come a time when the Democratic Party, whether for ethical or practical reasons, will sorely regret dismantling the very safeguards that for over three decades it had insisted were critical for the survival of the republic.
Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.
THE VP CANDIDATES
We know now almost all the details of Sarah Palin’s pregnancies, whether the trooper who tasered her nephew went to stun or half stun, the cost of her clothes, and her personal expenses — indeed, almost everything except how a mother of so many children gets elected councilwoman, mayor, and governor, routs an entrenched old-boy cadre, while maintaining near record levels of public support.
Yet the American public knows almost nothing of what it should about the extraordinary career of Joe Biden, the 36-year veteran of the Senate. In unprecedented fashion, Biden has simply avoided the press for most of the last two months, confident that the media instead would deconstruct almost every word of “good looking” Sarah Palin’s numerous interviews with mostly hostile interrogators.
By accepted standards of behavior, Biden has sadly proven wanting. He has committed almost every classical sin of character — plagiarism, false biography, racial insensitivity, and serial fabrication. And because of media silence, we don’t know whether he was kidding when he said America would not need to burn coal, or that Hezbollah was out of Lebanon, or that FDR addressed the nation on television as president in 1929 (surely a record for historical fictions in a single thought), or that the public would turn sour on Obama once he was challenged by our enemies abroad. In response, the media reported that the very public Sarah Palin was avoiding the press while the very private Joe Biden shunned interviews and was chained to the teleprompter.
For two months now, the media reaction to Biden’s inanity has been simply “that’s just ol’ Joe, now let’s turn to Palin,” who, in the space of two months, has been reduced from a popular successful governor to a backwoods creationist, who will ban books and champion white secessionist causes. The respective coverage of the two candidates is ironic in a variety of ways, but in one especially — almost every charge against Palin (that she is under wraps, untruthful, and inept) was applicable only to Biden.
So we are about to elect a vice president about whom we know only that he has been around a long time, but little else — and nothing at all why exactly Joe Biden says the most astounding and often lunatic things.
Imagine the reaction of Newsweek or Time had moose-hunting mom Sarah Palin claimed FDR went on television to address the nation as President in 1929, or warned America that our enemies abroad would test John McCain and that his response would result in a radical loss of his popularity at home.
THE PAST AS PRESENT
In 2004, few Americans knew Barack Obama. In 2008, they may elect him. Surely his past was of more interest than his present serial denials of it. Whatever the media’s feelings about the current Barack Obama, there should have been some story that the Obama of 2008 is radically different from the Obama who was largely consistent and predictable for the prior 30 years.
Each Obama metamorphosis in itself might be attributed to the normal evolution to the middle, as a candidate shifts from the primary to the general election. But in the case of Obama, we witnessed not a shift, but a complete transformation to an entirely new persona — in almost every imaginable sense of the word. Name an issue — FISA, NAFTA, guns, abortion, capital punishment, coal, nuclear power, drilling, Iran, Jerusalem, the surge — and Obama’s position today is not that of just a year ago.
Until 2005, Obama was in communication with Bill Ayers by e-mail and phone, despite Ayers reprehensible braggadocio in 2001 that he remained an unrepentant terrorist. Rev. Wright was an invaluable spiritual advisor — until spring of 2008. Father Pfleger was praised as an intimate friend in 2004 — and vanished off the radar in 2008. The media might have asked not just why these rather dubious figures were once so close to, and then so distant from, Obama; but why were there so many people like Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko in Obama’s past in the first place?
Behind the Olympian calm of Obama, there was always a rather disturbing record of extra-electoral politics completely ignored by the media. If one were disturbed by the present shenanigans of ACORN or the bizarre national call for Americans simply to skip work on election day to help elect Obama (who would pay for that?), one would only have to remember that in 1996 Obama took the extraordinary step of suing to eliminate all his primary rivals by challenging their petition signatures of mostly African-American voters.
In 2004, there was an even more remarkable chain of events in which the sealed divorce records of both his principle primary rival Blair Hull and general election foe, Jack Ryan, were mysteriously leaked, effectively ensuring Obama a Senate seat without serious opposition. These were not artifacts of a typical political career, but extraordinary events in themselves that might well have shed light on present campaign tactics — and yet largely remain unknown to the American people.
Imagine the reaction of CNN or NBC had John McCain’s pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years been revealed as a white supremacist who damned a multiracial United States, or had he been a close acquaintance until 2005 of an unrepentant terrorist bomber of abortion clinics, or had McCain himself sued to eliminate congressional opponents by challenging the validity of African-American voters who signed petitions, or had both his primary and general election senatorial rivals imploded once their sealed divorce records were mysteriously leaked.
SOCIALISM?
The eleventh-hour McCain allegations of Obama’s advocacy for a share-the-wealth socialism were generally ignored by the media, or if covered, written off as neo-McCarthyism. But there were two legitimate, but again neglected, issues.
The first was the nature of the Obama tax plan. The problem was not merely upping the income tax rates on those who made $250,000 (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000, or both, or none?), but its aggregate effect in combination with lifting the FICA ceilings on high incomes on top of existing Medicare contributions and often high state income taxes.
In other words, Americans who live in high-tax, expensive states like a New York or California could in theory face collective confiscatory tax rates of 65 percent or so on much of their income. And, depending on the nature of Obama’s proposed tax exemptions, on the other end of the spectrum we might well see almost half the nation’s wage earners pay no federal income tax at all.
Questions arise, but were again not explored: How wise is it to exempt one out of every two income earners from any worry over how the nation gathers its federal income tax revenue? And when credits are added to the plan, are we now essentially not cutting or raising taxes, but simply diverting wealth from those who pay into the system to those who do not?
A practical effect of socialism is often defined as curbing productive incentives by ensuring the poorer need not endanger their exemptions and credits by seeking greater income; and discouraging the wealthy from seeking greater income, given that nearly two-thirds of additional wealth would be lost to taxes. Surely that discussion might have been of interest to the American people.
Second, the real story was not John McCain’s characterization of such plans, but both inadvertent, and serial descriptions of them, past and present, by Barack Obama himself. “Spreading the wealth around” gains currency when collated to past interviews in which Obama talked at length about, and in regret at, judicial impracticalities in accomplishing his own desire to redistribute income. “Tragedy” is frequent in the Obama vocabulary, but largely confined to two contexts: the tragic history of the United States (e.g., deemed analogous to that of Nazi Germany during World War II), and the tragic unwillingness or inability to use judicial means to correct economic inequality in non-democratic fashion.
In this regard, remember Obama’s revealing comment that he was interested only in “fairness” in increasing capital-gains taxes, despite the bothersome fact that past moderate reductions in rates had, in fact, brought in greater revenue to government. Again, fossilized ideology trumps empiricism.
Imagine the reaction of NPR and PBS had John McCain advocated something like abolishing all capital gains taxes, or repealing incomes taxes in favor of a national retail sales tax.
The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.
Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
| | | 60 Views | 2  Thumbs Up | 2 Comments |  |
|
|
| | Well done young man, well done. | | | Monday, October 27, 2008 (11:49 AM)
(I'm feeling impressed) | | The Stanford Review
Gay Marriage as a Conservative Institution
By Yishai Kabaker Volumn XLI, Issue 3
Tensions have escalated as gay rights and family values groups compete to out-fund one another before the November referendum on gay marriage. The proposed California constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) seeks to reinforce marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, thereby reversing a May decision by the California Supreme Court that extended marriage to gay couples.
As a gay conservative I find myself caught between the two camps. I am strongly in favor of gay marriage yet I understand the concern of conservatives at the perceived attack on marriage.
The gay rights movement arose in the late ‘60s early ‘70s as part of the greater Civil Rights Movement. The early gay movement forged a unique culture emblemized by gay pride parades, drag queens and the sexual revolution. Since mainstream institutions were vehemently opposed to homosexuality, gays and lesbians felt little desire to conform or emulate those institutions. However, as mainstream society grew more tolerant of homosexuals, the need for the extreme in-your-face advocates diminished. While issues of homophobia and hatred still challenge mainstream American, society is moving toward greater acceptance of homosexuality.
Gay marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon and reflects a shift in the LGBT community away from sexual revolution toward the American mainstream. One of the earliest and most prolific advocates of gay marriage is gay conservative Andrew Sullivan. In a 1997 debate with David Frum, he summed up the desire for gay marriage by explaining “We do not want any change in the obligations that marriage entails. We want the same limits as now apply--but applied to people regardless of their sexual orientation.” In this sense the desire for gay marriage is not merely a fight for the legal and social benefits, but also a desire for the serious commitments that marriage entails.
Getting married requires an act of devotion. However, marriage has become all too casual, often being abused for monetary benefits or convenience. On the other hand, marriage is not a static custom and has changed drastically over the past few hundred years. The Western conception of marriage no longer entails dowries, parental matchmaking or underage engagements.
Opponents of gay marriage often lump homosexual unions with socially unacceptable acts like polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia. But those sexual acts are either inherently unequal or do not have the consent of both parties. Others note that gay marriage does not naturally produce children. But marriage is not a biological institution; it’s a uniquely human social construction. If we were to do things purely because of biology, polygamy would be ideal for breeding.
Much of hysteria surrounding the extension of marriage to homosexuals is based on fears of gay promiscuity. However, promiscuity is not confined to homosexuals.
The gay marriage movement is not a desire to slap a marriage sticker on the promiscuous bar scene, but rather a desire to live by the rules and mutual obligations of marriage.
| | | | 88 Views | 6 Thumbs Up | 3 Comments | |
|
|
| | Gay men have more sex then me | | | Saturday, October 25, 2008 (9:55 PM)
(I'm feeling contemplative) | |
Had a great conversation with a young gay man about his college studies. He told me that he was writing his Masters dissertation on the culture of gay men. He made some very interesting points but some I flatly disagree. He asserts that gay men have not been taught the fundamentals of moral behavior, implying that gay men are promiscuous because they do not have a strong moral base. I was baffled by his judgment. I could not help but strongly disagree. The following is basically what I told him.
Men and women are raised in different ways in different households, true. But we have a fundamental understanding of an “American” way of doing things. And those morays are deeply rooted in gender. I would wager it is similar to those in other industrialized nations
I have long believed that gay men have more sexual opportunities because of some very key elements different from the average straight guy. First to my mind, gay men are not concerned about pregnancy. I suppose that goes without saying, but not really. When you have that constant pregnancy issue looming in your head, and all the implications of pregnancy, you tend to be more selective as a woman. That is not to say that straight men wouldn’t sex up any girl that would take them, but it is the woman that are cautious and not so willing to be sexual with whomever they may find attractive in the moment.
Gay men can be sexually random, or could be sexually random before HIV hit the scene, with anyone that they may have fancied at any given moment. They could do this because, one, they had no concern for pregnancy, therefore, no real need to be selective.
Second, men as a general rule are taught at an early age, through media, pals, fathers, and the average guy on the street, that sex is one of the most important pursuits a man can aspire. The more the manlier. Women are to be hunted and conquered. This pursuit and accomplishment makes you better then the guy with “less game”. The rub is the women. Women are taught, through the same sources, that they are to run, resist, control, dole, and be selective. Women are told that sex is a weapon of control and is to be experienced sparingly and with conditions. Women understand that they are the ones that get pregnant; they are the ones that are seen as loose, slutty, a whore, tramp, out-of-wedlock, harlot that was asking for it. Therefore she must be weary and always vigilant to men’s advances, or as they say “why buy the cow when the milk is free”. There are no pejoratives for men who want to have sex with multiple partners, unless you consider stud, manly, lady killer, charmer, ‘The Man’, or all around playa, to be negatives. Doubt it.
Therefore if you take the women out of the mix, what’s left but gay men that have no boundaries to their sexual desires. Their morals are no different than their straight counter-parts; they simply do not have the same constraints. So for me it is not a matter of morality and more a matter of opportunity. Two men hunting are going to result in a lot more pelts, so to speak.
My young gay friend followed with “So why aren’t Lesbians just as promiscuous?” For all the reasons I stated above. Women are raised to control their sexual desire. It is not acceptable for a women, lesbian or not, to be sexual for the pure physical enjoyment of it. This is not to be tolerated. Women are to be in love in order for sex to be considered or real or valid. Is this a good thing? It certainly has its merit, but it has its pitfalls as well.
As women we are left with two inadequate extremes of sexual behavior choices. Either you are pure or you are a slut. We have yet to truly embrace the middle ground. Worse still, we have women condemning other women for unlady-like behavior. Society as a whole is uncomfortable with women’s sexuality. Why should society, when women perpetuate the myth hook line and sinker. We can be our own worst enemy’s ladies.
I’m no Pollyanna; I understand that sexual behavior can’t be summed up in the concept of pregnancy and general social construct. There are numerous variables and countless exceptions. Still, I believe this is as good a theory as any.
My young gay friend did not dig my theory and will continue with his premise. I don't resent that. I resent that as a gay man he will have more sex then me.....bastard....;)
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
| | | | 80 Views | 4 Thumbs Up | 2 Comments | |
|
|
| | Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand | | | Saturday, October 18, 2008 (12:35 PM)
(I'm feeling bloated and unattractive) | | One of my favorite novels is Atlas Shrugged. I think it is a book worth everyone's time. Ayn Rand has many books and they to are worth reading. Below are some passages from the book that I am particularly fond of. The final quote is by far my favorite.
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
He was guilty of nothing, except that he earned his own fortune and never forgot that it was his.
Ayn Rand , Atlas Shrugged
Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplacable spark. In the hopeless swamps of the not quite, the not yet, and the not at all, do not let the hero in your soul perish and leave only frustration for the life you deserved, but never have been able to reach. The world you desire can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours.
Ayn Rand , Atlas Shrugged | | | | 70 Views | 2 Thumbs Up | 1 Comment | |
|
|
| | Tax the Rich - ramblings | | | Thursday, October 16, 2008 (2:42 PM)
(I'm feeling Bloated with lower back dicomfort) | | If you promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and you promise to tax big business and anyone making over 250.000, are you not reallly taxing 100% of Americans?
If you raise the taxes on Walmart, a huge business, are we to believe that Walmart will simply pay those increased taxes and not pass them on to the customer? All these big businees and small business that easily reach the 250.000 mark are not just going to swallow increased taxes without pushing those off onto us.
This is a simple economic fact.
Any company that is impacted by higher taxes that does not adjust prices accordingly will either fold or layoff employees. How exactly does that help us?
In strained ecomonic times, raising taxes is the last thing we need. If business raise prices due to increased taxes then any promise tax cut is rendered void. You give me an extra dollar and you charge walmart an extra dollar then my dollar is worthless.
Why do we attack the rich and wish to increase their taxes. Is it not enough that the top 2% of this country pay over 70% of American taxes. (rounding down)
If you cut taxes on anyone under 250.000, some of which are NOT paying any taxes at all, are you not taking from the successful and giving to the less successful.
If you believe it is the duty of successful business owners and coporations to give their profits and earnings to less successful, distribute the wealth, then you must be one of those people that believe "there are no losers", "everyone gets a trophy", "everyone gets a ribbon", "there is no last place".
I am against over taxing the rich. I am against the concept that they should be willing to pay more becasue they have a duty to the rest of us. I am against successful business being bitch-slapped so that we can feel better about our woefullly lacking bank accounts.
If I get an A+ on my math quiz
You get a C- on your math quiz
I have to give up the A+ that I earned
so that you can have a B you didn't earn
and reduce me to a B
so that we can be equal.
Are we really equal? | | | | 69 Views | 2 Thumbs Up | 1 Comment | |
|
|
| | Interesting Article | | | Tuesday, October 7, 2008 (2:43 PM)
(I'm feeling okay) | | A feminist's argument for McCain's VP
Tammy Bruce
Sunday, September 7, 2008
In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.
Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.
Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.
The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.
Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, "Fatal Attraction," noting, "Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career...". These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was "Bros Before Hoes," to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.
The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.
There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?
Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.
Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.
Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.
The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.
They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.
Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.
The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.
It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.
The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count.
Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.
On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.
Tammy Bruce is the author of "The New American Revolution" (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter. E-mail comments to insight@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page G - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
| | | | 80 Views | 0 Thumbs Up | 1 Comment | |
|
|
| | Set Up To Fail | | | Tuesday, September 30, 2008 (5:50 PM)
(I'm feeling perplexed) | | This article appeared in the New York Times September 30, 1999. You can access the original online by searching on the title.
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
That was nine years ago. If they could see it coming then why did it have to happen?
The dilemma faced by lawmakers that tried to address these problems before they reached catastrophic proportions, one being McCain, invited the wrath of an angry mob. "See!", they would scream, "There wasn't a problem! The mean greedy rich people have once again robbed the poor! Shame! Throw the bums out!"
As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Meanwhile, financial jackass Barney "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis" Frank remains chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Nancy Pelosi, current speaker of the house, would like the country to believe that this whole thing is the fault of the current republican party
"right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation"
This stuff is beyond parody.
I recommend you watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY | | | | 82 Views | 2 Thumbs Up | 2 Comments | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
